-ya

ná

is

ná (1) vb. "is" (am). (Nam, RGEO:67). This is the copula used to join adjectives, nouns or pronouns "in statements (or wishes) asserting (or desiring) a thing to have certain quality, or to be the same as another" (VT49:28). Also in impersonal constructions: ringa ná "it is cold" (VT49:23). The copula may however be omitted "where the meaning is clear" without it (VT49:9). Ná is also used as an interjection "yes" or "it is so" (VT49:28). Short na in airë [] na, "[] is holy" (VT43:14; some subject can evidently be inserted in the place of [].) Short na also functions as imperative: alcar mi tarmenel na Erun "glory in high heaven be to God" (VT44:32/34), also na airë "be holy" (VT43:14); also cf. nai "be it that" (see nai #1). The imperative participle á may be prefixed (á na, PE17:58). However, VT49:28 cites ná as the imperative form. Pl. nar or nár "are" (PE15:36, VT49:27, 9, 30); dual nát(VT49:30). With pronominal endings: nányë/nanyë "I am", nalyë or natyë "you (sg.) are" (polite and familiar, respectively), nás "it is", násë "(s)he is", nalmë "we are" (VT49:27, 30). Some forms listed in VT49:27 are perhaps to be taken as representing the aorist: nain, naityë, nailyë (1st person sg, and 2nd person familiar/polite, respectively); does a following na represent the aorist with no pronominal ending? However, the forms nanyë, nalyë, ná, nassë, nalme, nar (changed from nár) are elsewhere said to be "aorist", without the extra vowel i (e.g. nalyë rather than nailyë); also notice that *"(s)he is" is here nassë rather than násë(VT49:30).Pa.t. nánë or né "was", pl. náner/nér and dual nét "were" (VT49:6, 9, 10, 27, 28, 30, 36). According to VT49:31, né "was" cannot receive pronominal endings (though nésë "he was" is attested elsewhere, VT49:28-29), and such endings are rather added to the form ane-, e.g. anen "I was", anel "you were", anes "(s)he/it was" (VT49:28-29). Future tense nauva "will be" (VT42:34, VT49:19, 27; another version however gives the future tense as uva, VT49:30). Nauva with a pronominal ending occurs in tanomë nauvan "I will be there" (VT49:19), this example indicating that forms of the verb ná may also be used to indicate position. Perfect anaië "has been" (VT49:27, first written as anáyë). Infinitive (or gerund) návë "being", PE17:68. See also nai #1.

Telerin
1RjR7T5

-ya

Khuzdûl

-n

Adûnaic

-n

suffix.is, predicate suffix

A suffix appearing at the end of several words in the first draft of Lament of Akallabêth, variously glossed with different forms of the verb “to be”: burudan “heavy-is”, rōkhī-nam “bent-are”, īdōn “now is” (SD/312). Evidentally the suffix -n “is” is the singular form and -nam “are” is plural. The plural form probably includes the plural verbal suffix -m. This use of the suffix -n is probably no longer be valid in later versions of Adûnaic, as discussed below.

Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (VSH/36) that -nam maybe related to Q. ná- “to be”, but they fail to analyze the singular forms of the suffix. Andreas Moehn (LGtAG) does connect the singular instances of the suffix -n to the plural -nam, but without connecting it to Q. ná-. I think both authors got part of the story right: the suffixal form -na is mostly likely derived from the same Elvish root √NĀ as Q. ná-, losing its final a in the singular form but preserving it in the plural form when the plural suffix -m is added.

In its first two appearances in the draft version of the Lament, this suffix is attached to the predicate of a copula (a linguistic term for a “to be” expression). For that reason, this lexicon uses the term “predicate suffix” for this use of the -n suffix:

The suffix’s second two appearances in the draft version of the Lament are more ambiguous.

ēphalek īdō~n~ akallabēth “far away lo!now ~is~ She-that-is-fallen”.

ēphal ēphalek īdō~n~ athanātē “far far away ~is~ now the Land of Gift”.

Going by word order alone, it seems that the -n is attached to the predicate in both of these sentences as well. However, as Andreas Moehn points out (LGtAG), īdō could be the subject of both sentences if the predicates are the final word of each sentence, which is more consistent with the later subjective inflection.

In the later version of Adûnaic described in Lowdham’s Report, the suffix -n has a new function, namely as the common subjective suffix: -an/-n. This new use differs from the older one in that it applies to the subject of a copula instead of the predicate. Despite this grammatical change from draft-Adûnaic, the word form īdōn appears in all later versions of the Lament of Akallabêth except the final manuscript version.

These later appearances of īdōn still have the gloss “now (is)”, so it seems possible that these they are remnants of the predicate suffix from draft Adûnaic. Moehn, Hostetter and Wynne all suggested (LGtAG, AAD/16) that these later appearances of īdōn can be reinterpreted as a subjective inflection. However, this interpretation is still problematic, since îdô would surely be a neuter instead of a common noun, whose subjective form would therefore be *îdôwa.

The suffix -n did not appear after īdō in the final manuscript version of the Lament, and the gloss “is” was removed as well:

ul>

It is my belief that Tolkien eventually decided that the suffix -n could no longer be used in this context and removed it.

Doriathrin

-en

suffix.adjectival suffix

An adjectival suffix appearing as both -en and -in, and in one place as -on: Brithon. The -en form can be easily explained as a derivative of the primitive suffix ᴹ✶-inā, with the primitive [i] becoming [e] due to Ilkorin a-affection, the same origin as the Noldorin adjectival suffix -en. The -in variant is more difficult to explain. At least one example lómen had variations with both -en and -in, so perhaps the two forms represented vacillation on the function of Ilkorin a-affection, or an alternate primitive form ᴹ✶-ină where the final ă was lost before a-affection.

Alterately, -in could be a Doriathrin-specific variant, since the forms where it appears are all Doriathrin, while the forms where -en appear are marked Ilkorin, excepting only lómen which was itself revised from lómin.

-ui

Black Speech, Nandorin, Noldorin, Quendya, Quenya, Sindarin, Telerin are languages conceived by Tolkien and they do not belong to us; we neither can nor do claim affiliation
with Middle-earth Enterprises nor Tolkien Estate.